Tuesday, March 31, 2009

I'm not a concern troll, folks. On the contrary. I'm just a person on the blogosphere who doesn't necessarily perceive things as pure, black and white, etc..I mean, I know that that makes me a rarity and infuriating to people whose sole purpose in life is to get others to "join" them, validate a large percentage of their more cherried notions and all but, seriously, it is what it is, me-bucko. And to me at least, that translates to things a wee-bit more on the complicated side..............................................................Take, for instance, the left's extremely persistent mistrust of Wall Street/corporate America. I actually DO kind of share that mistrust. But I also tend to share the mistrust that conservatives have of the federal government. That's not exactly a smooth running and benevolent institution, either. And, yes, folks, because of these rather unseemly realities/dichotomies, the upshot, at least in my opinion, is a shit-load of rather difficult choices.............................................................So, please, folks, if it seems like I'm sometimes riding the fence here, arguing the merits (and demerits) of multiple sides, etc., yes, I implore you NOW, give the fellow a break from time to time. All it means is that I AM struggling. And if you don't want to listen to me, me-buckos, how about this little quote from President Obama? "If there were easy solutions out there, they already would have been tried."

Monday, March 30, 2009

The Fairness Doctrine kind of reminds me of the Patriot Act. This, I'm saying, in that it sounds good (wonderful, even) but once in fact you start to peel away at the fringes of it, you're never quite so sure anymore. This is especially true when you start to ask questions pertaining to implementation...............................................................For example: Does the Fairness Doctrine only apply to AM radio? Or, does it apply to network news as well? What about to our public television, major newspapers, cable news? Does it apply to the Internet? And who is the arbiter of what is considered fair? Would it be a special government paper-shuffler/bureaucrat....appointed by a politician?.................................................................And then there's the nuts and bolts of it all. How would it even work, for Christ? Does Rush Limbaugh, say, have to share the microphone with some nondittohead? Or do they simply take turns; Rush for a half-hour to an hour, the liberal for half-hour to an hour? And what would happen if the listeners simply turned the dial when it WASN'T Rush....but the liberal voice who was teeing off? I mean, think about it here, folks, in that instance, you'd actually be having the federal government mandating that a radio station's ratings and profits DECREASE! That is kind of scary, I think.....................................................................Now I know that a lot of these stations are corporately owned, and that, maybe, because of this, it is harder for liberal radio to get a break these days. I hear you. But, come on, there has got to be a better answer. My suggestion is that George Soros and Ted Turner get together and maybe procure some of those stations, throw some hackneyed liberal voices (yes, as opposed to those hackneyed conservative voices) behind the mic, and, yes, have them all compete. And what about frigging satellite radio? There are all sorts of opportunities there, too. I mean, come on, we're talking about the government coming in and controlling free speech here. Any frigging thing but that as an answer, I'm thinking.

Your silence is deafening, Mr. Gore. I mean, sure, you've been vocal enough in general on global warming but, damn it, sir, the devil continues to be in the details here. As I've stated many times before, the American meat/livestock industry continues to contribute more in terms of man-made greenhouse gasses than all of our cars, trucks, planes, and trains COMBINED!! And, being that most of this information continues to come from U.N. reports, I'm pretty sure you're aware of it, Mr. Gore. Once again, I ask you, why the silence? Why the frigging silence?................................................................I mean, seriously, bro, shouldn't you be educationg people here? Shouldn't you be telling them that the best way that they personally can stop global warming is to switch to a vegetarian diet, or at least eat less in terms of red meat? And what about you, shouldn't YOU be setting a better example by eating less meat yourself? I mean, you do want to be a good role model, don't you? DON'T YOU?

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Have you noticed that whenever O'Reilly wants to expose liberal bias by his competitors at MSNBC, he generally tries to underscore it by showing footage of Chris Matthews? I mean, seriously, folks, am I the only one finds this particular tactic at least a tad on the suspicious side? It's like, hell, even Mr. O'Reilly himself admits to a little something something. "I don't mean to pick on poor Matthews. He's not anywhere near the worst over there." He's not the worst and yet he continues to pick on him. Hmm...................................................................Gee, folks, could it simply be that Mr. O'Reilly is a coward? I mean, think about it. Everybody and his sister knows that Bill O'Reilly's real beef is with Olbermann. You'd think that O'Reilly'd show some cahones and mention Mr. Olbermann by name and, yes, systematically attempt to rebut (not to mention, attack) his competitor. But he doesn't. He doesn't because he's afraid of giving Olbermann publicity, afraid that his own ratings could potentially suffer, etc.........................................................And he doesn't mention Rachel Maddow, either. The reason for that is is that Maddow comes on right after Olbermann and if in fact folks tune in to see her, and do so five minutes early, they just might hear the words, "Bill O'Reilly, the worst person in the world!!!!"....................................................................As for me, folks, I'm starting to get sick of it all the way around. I just wish that both of these guys (not to mention all the others out there who urinate on their competitors) would just go back to covering news and events. I mean, I know that O'Reilly is basically the protagonist here, the fact that he's always coming up with new and unique conspiracy theories, etc., but, lately, folks, a lot of what he's been spouting is retaliatory to Olbermann's snipes. Olbermann hammers him and O'Reilly counters by slamming MSNBC. It's all getting kind of nauseating, frankly. Hey, maybe we could get George Mitchell to broker a peace here (though, yes, northern Ireland was probably a cake-walk, comparable).

Friday, March 27, 2009

I really wish that O'Reilly would stop lumping MSNBC and CNN together. I mean, I know that he likes to denigrate his competition and all, generalize the daylights out of anything that doesn't say "fair and balanced", etc., but come on!.............................................................Yes, MSNBC (especially in prime-time) is as blatantly far-left a media entity as any in our history - no question! But CNN, while it hasn't always been perfectly down the middle, in my opinion, it's now far and away the fairest cable news channel, period. And, yes, I base this upon my viewing of it. From Lou Dobbs (boorishness and immigration fixation, aside) to Wolf Blitzer to Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown, the shows are balanced and the presentations fair. And if you don't believe me, just watch it yourself. Like I just said, most topics they choose for discussion are unbiasedly presented and the panels balanced (i.e., real liberals and real conservatives). And civil - none of this strident, denigrating the other side bull-crap of Fox and MSNBC. Real news, essentially, and real debate.

First of all, folks, I have absolutely no problem with President Obama's Special Olympics joke (gaffe, if you prefer). In fact, the politically incorrect tenor of it actually made me like it somewhat - laugh even (as I tend to like Obama's sense of humor in general). I mean, sure, the fact that he's the president probably should have caused him to press the pause-button and save the joke for later but, come on, the guy's a human being and human beings make mistakes. We're especially adept at putting our feet in our mouths.............................................................The only part of this that bothers me, folks, is the inconsistency. This, I'm saying, in that I think we all know what would have happened had a Republican said something this politically incorrect. Yeah, that's right. Internet sites such as the Daily Kos would have gone absolutely apoplectic. And, so, too, would have radio personalities such as Lydia Cornell and Rachel Maddow. To them, folks, a gaffe is only a gaffe if a Republican says it. Progressively speaking, of course!

Thursday, March 26, 2009

I was watching the Factor the other night, folks. And, yes, I was (as I am from time to time) very amused. Bill was in the midst of one of his powder-puff interviews with "analyst" (propagandist, if you prefer), Karl Rove, and Rove, right in the middle of the love-fest, uttered this gratuitous "observation". He actually had the temerity to call President Obama arrogant. Rove, I'm saying - Rove called Obama arrogant. It's like, talk about the pond calling the river wet, huh?.............................................................I mean, I know that I've been a little tough on Obama from time to time (topics ranging from wasteful spending to rendition) but, truly, if I ever had to pick between him and Karl Rove, I think I'm probably going to have to go with the president here. Hell, I actually kind of like the president. He's smart. He's funny. And, yes, from what I can tell, folks, he doesn't seem to have a mean bone, either (something that his stronger critics probably see as a weakness). I, personally, would love to have a beer with the fellow..............................................................There, now if I could only get him to listen to Evan Bayh more, Nancy Pelosi a hell of a lot less, etc..

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

And then there's this from John McCain (circa 2005). "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." Yeah, folks, THAT John McCain - the same John McCain who was stumblin', fumblin', and bumblin' his way along the campaign trail for all those months, singing about bombing Iran (to a Beach Boys melody, no less) and shit. EVEN THAT GUY KNEW THAT THERE WERE TROUBLES ALONG THE HORIZON. But, no, the mainstream media continues to blame the Republicans. Go figure, huh?

Back in 2003, folks, President Bush proposed sweeping reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. THAT is a fact. It is also a fact that he was opposed vociferously - not only by interest groups but by the United States Congress as well (yes, mostly by Democrats under Barney Frank but also by Republicans). I frankly (no pun intended) don't understand the massive confusion here...............................................................And it's not like I'm saying that Bush was a great president or anything. He and the Republicans inordinately messed up a lot of things; foreign policy, Katrina, the budget deficit, etc.. But, come on here people! Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And in this instance, Bush, the broken clock, WAS RIGHT....and the Democrats were wrong. I mean, seriously, why is that so hard for certain people to say? Bush....was....right.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

In summation, folks, Barney Frank 1) fought every attempt to regulate Fannie and Freddie, 2) got tons of campaign cash FROM these entities, and 3) has an ex-lover who was the director of housing initiatives for Fannie Mae. Oh, and in case you think that that third one is a cheap shot, it was Frank himself (in an effort to justify the left's pissing on Sarah Palin and her teenage daughter) who said that "family life should be fair game for campaign discussions.".............................................................I also think it should be stated, folks, that Congressman Frank's roots on this issue are excessively deep. Back in 1991, the Boston Globe (normally a paper sympathetic to the left) reported that Frank pushed those at Fannie Mae to LOOSEN REGULATIONS on mortgages for two and three family homes, even though these particular dwellings were defaulting at two and five times the rate of single family homes. And in 1994, when President Clinton attempted to impose new regulations on Fanny, damned if Frank didn't succeed in thwarting him, too. This is from Clinton himself, folks. "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Bill Clinton, me-buckos, a pretty darn good president, I think. Well, except for....

Back in September of 2003, the Bush administration (in yes, one of its few moments of lucidity) proposed tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, yes, folks, they proceeded to meet with resistance - considerable resistance. In fact, you may have actually heard of this guy. He goes by the name of Barney Frank. I quote him directly here. "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in O.C.C. and O.T.S.. I want to roll the dice a little more in this situation towards subsidized housing." ROLL THE DICE? And later that day, to the New York Times, he uttered this. "Those two entities - Fannie and Freddie - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.".............................................................So, there you have it, folks, Barney Frank was more interested in his lofty social goals and ideology than he was the taxpayers' money. Typical, huh? And as for this whole Barney Frank fellow not having a crystal ball, maybe not. But he sure should have been able to read the writing on the wall a little better. I mean, seriously, to be lesser in terms of foresight than George W. Bush. That, my friends, is truly pathetic................................................................As to why the Bush administration and a Republican congress wasn't able to steamroll Mr. Frank, I don't know. My suspicion is that there were more than enough spineless Republicans worrying about reelection to successfully beat back what had evidently grown to be a popular entitlement. Just like President Bush had Democratic enablers, so, too, apparently did Frank have Republicans playing C.Y.A.. Politics as usual, in other words, politics as usual.

Monday, March 23, 2009

There are a lot of statistics floating around out there, folks. And while it may be stated that a lot of them are in fact meaningless....and/or deceptive (flat-out incendiary, some of them), you do from time to time come across one that staggers you, leaves you in a speechless state, etc...........................................................I point specifically to this "statistic", folks. It's the one that states that there are more books translated into Spanish EVERY YEAR than have been translated into Arabic for the past thousand years. Youza, huh?...........................................................Now, granted, there could perhaps be some benign explanations here; the fact that there are a lot of Arabs who already speak English, in particular. But, still, folks, how can you not at least consider a slightly cynical interpretation here; the fact that these countries/cultures always seem to suppress dissent/alternative paradigms, interpretations, etc.?...............................................................And what about how this restricted control of information, not only stifles individuality within these societies but how it hampers understanding BETWEEN our cultures? President Obama (quite rightly, in my opinion) wants to more fully engage with these Middle-Eastern countries. I dont know, folks, it seems to me that that might be a tad difficult here. I mean, seriously, will they even understand what he's saying?

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Just for the record, folks, Ho Chi Minh didn't turn to Stalin because of what happened in 1956. There clearly wasn't a need to do so. This, I'm saying, in that Ho, the bastard, had in fact turned to him earlier than that - much, much, earlier (1950, at the latest). Add to that the fact that Ho himself was as hard-core a Bolshevik as any of his tutors and, yeah, you do kind of understand the need to slow him down a tad..................................................................And, really, this whole thing about Ho being the man to bring Democracy to Vietnam, seriously, folks, does anybody with even the hint of a pulse think that that passes the smell test? First of all, North Vietnam was a single-party state. So if in fact there ever was a second election in Vietnam (itself not a sure thing), who in the hell BUT a Communist would win? Never mind the fact that Communism doesn't allow for such minor Democratic "technicalities" as open dialogue, freedoms of assembly, worship, the press, etc................................................................I don't know, folks, in my opinion, there probably would have been a civil war in Vietnam anyway, elections or not. One, the people who didn't support Ho clearly wouldn't have tolerated such bull-crap and two, the Communists no doubt would have tried to crush that dissent. Then what? Hopefully, presidents such as Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson would have had the sense to stay out of it (i.e., not have "American boys do the fighting that Asian boys themselves should be doing"). Well, that and be prepared for some boat-people, etc..

Saturday, March 21, 2009

A couple of additional points here, Clif. First of all, you've been saying consistently that it was the Dulles brothers who "blocked" the Vietnamese elections. It wasn't. It was Diem. Granted, we agreed with him and continued to support him. But that's a lot different than saying that WE blocked the elections............................................................Secondly, I find it very disturbing that you see the bulk of these foreign policy issues in such a cut and dry manner. They aren't (most of them, anyway) cut and dry, Clif. They're murky and sometimes involve us in having to choose the lesser of two unappealing choices. Take, for instance Eisenhower having to pick between a Communist and non-Communist pig. He made the best decision he could (especially considering the time-frame he made it in)...............................................................Thirdly, Clif, in terms of the domino theory, there are clearly arguments for it and against it. I base my opinion that it made at least some sense on the fact (as Rufus Phillips points out in "Why Vietnam Matters") that a lot of the countries in that region had extremely corrupt governments and, because of that, were vulnerable. I also point out to the fact that South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all went Communist after our departure from theatre (you, of course, could argue that Thailand and Indonesia didn't). And, really, Clif, the fact that you continue to use 2009 sensibilities in your micro-analysis here - 53 years after the frigging fact!..........................................................And, finally, Clif, JFK (another of my favorite presidents) had a significant opportunity to change the course here (and, yes, he probably would have done so had he lived). But he didn't. He continued to support Diem (I guess you have an argument with Kennedy here, Clif), increased the number of advisers to 13,000, and, with Diem, helped to formulate the idiotic strategy of Strategic Hamlet. Not exactly a stellar record, either. Murky, one might say.

How is it, folks, that this Barney Frank guy continues to skate? I mean, seriously, is the media that far in the tank for the Dems that they won't even take a look at him? And the fact that Bill O'Reilly is the only one who seems to be able to see through him. THAT is especially embarrassing.............................................................Oh, and if you think that I'm over-selling the case against Mr. Frank, think again. Just look at his own frigging words, for Christ! Back in 2000, Mr. Frank said that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown' and that there was "no federal liability whatsoever." In 2002, he said that "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems" and added that he "regarded them as great assets." In 2003, he said that there was "no federal guarantee of Fannie and Freddie obligations" and in 2004 that it was "no threat to the treasury.".............................................................And, no, folks, it isn't just his words, either. Mr. Frank has received over $40,000 in campaign contributions from these entities and, yes, had a romantic relationship with one of its executives, too. Can you say conflict of interest/dirty, stinking, lying politician? I can. Apparently the mainstream media cannot - at least they can't with a Democrat, anyway. To qute the famous request of LIBERAL commentator, Orson Scott Card, "Would the last honest reporter please turn on the light?"

Yes, Clif, Diem was a stinker. But he did change South Vietnam from an occupied territory to a republic with at least some laws and order. In basically any respect, his rule was better than the French control and certainly better than the Communist tyranny that took over in '75.....................................................................And let us not forget, me-bucko, that after Diem was bounced and Thieu took over, democracy actually started to ascend (at least when compared to other 3rd-world countries. Freedoms of the press and speech, for instance, reached acceptable levels (especially considering the nastiness of the enemy they were up against). And, so, too, were human rights better under Thieu than in the north. This, I'm saying, in that under the Communists, people could be arrested at any time (for anything), prison guards were in fact allowed to brutalize inmates at will, death sentences were given for even petty crimes, and in some instances, connexes or large metal boxes were used in place of jail-cells.................................................................As for all of this supposed support for Ho Chi Minh, most of THAT was arrived at through propaganda and intimidation. The Communists would lie through their teeth about us, proclaim that we would capture them (all the peasants, basically) and turn them into slave labor. Only the Communists could save them..................................................................I don't know, Clif, I'm beginning to think that President Obama is correct here. Elections can only have true meaning when in fact they have true liberty/the full bite of Democratic institutions behind them. Otherwise, fellow, you end up with Ho Chi Minh, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, and various other bull-shit rabble..................................................................P.S. I still totally agree with you, though. No way we should have gotten involved there. While it may have been just to try and stop Communist advancement, it sure wasn't a wise decision to try and stop it there. And most certainly not then.

Friday, March 20, 2009

This is directly from the Pentagon Papers, folks. "The U.S. DID NOT (my emphasis) - as is often alleged - connive with Diem to ignore the elections. U.S. State Department records indicate that Diem's refusal to be bound by the Geneva Accords and his opposition to pre-election consultations were at his own initiative."...............................................................Oh, and if you think that John Foster Dulles was the real man behind the curtain here, try a little quote from Dulles himself. "The United States believes, broadly speaking, in the unification of countries which have a historic unity, where the people are akin. We also believe that, if there are conditions of really free elections, there is no serious risk that the Communists would win."...............................................................Youza, huh? Oh, and, yes, it also must be noted that the 80% comment made by Eisenhower (i.e., that Ho Chi Minh would probably win that percentage in an election with Dai) was made in 1954. By 1956, while it still may be true that Ho could have won, it would have been by a considerably closer margin (another fact derived from the Pentagon Papers). And, yes, folks, when you combine that with the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a murderous and repressive thug who ordered the killing of over 50,000 small-scale landlords, failed to provide for basic freedoms of speech, the press, etc., and was bank-rolled primarily by the Soviets, Diem (who himself wasn't a choir boy - let's be honest here) in fact may have been on to something. Just a fleeting thought, me-buckos.

So, Clif, are you now saying that those generals in the field have the capacity to over-rule the President - THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF? That's very interesting, bro. The only problem is that apparently President Truman didn't get the memorandum..............................................................And, no, Cliffy, I'm not referring to that episode where Truman ultimately canned MacArthur. I'm talking about something that happened earlier than that. According to professors Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden (of American and Cornell Universities, respectively), Truman actually went against the advice of his generals when he finally decided to drop that mega-tonnage. These men, after a thorough analysis of the diplomatic archives of the U.S., Japan, and Russia, have concluded that Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, in addition to Admiral Leahy, advised President Truman that the dropping of the H-bombs was unnecessary, that Japan was genuinely on the cusp of looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict...............................................................They further concluded, Clif (and like I also alluded to in a previous thread), that Truman's true motivations were far more Machiavellian. He wanted, one, to punish the Japanese, but also to put some fear of God into the Russians (he had the foresight to see them as an evil entity/future adversary). He killed hundreds of thousands for bluster, in other words (this, according to Kuznick and Selden, anyway)...........................................................................Not that there's anything wrong with that.......................................................................P.S. Cliffy, look. I can't say definitively whether Truman did the right thing or not. I'd like to think that he did. All I'm saying is that none of these guys are really pure, and that if in fact you do go on a fishing expedition, yeah, you're probably going to catch something. Keep me posted, huh, bro?

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

She had discarded Retch as if he were cellophane. And even had, I'm saying, those far more pertinent components themselves been examined, seriously, folks, you still wouldn't have thought her to be as callous as that. Of course, the way that Slade Leeds had in fact been porking her previously, let's just say that there probably wasn't much in terms of sympathy available - certainly not for Retch, especially!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Not only has George Bush left President Obama a bad economy, he's left him with a mess in Afghanistan, too. I mean, come on, let's face it here, folks. George Bush blew it in Afghanistan. Back in '02 he had the Taliban on the run and Al Qaeda basically routed. And he even had what appeared to be a fairly decent regime coming up to replace the Taliban...........................................................But that was then, me-buckos. Because of the fact that Bush in fact took his eyes off the ball, we now have a totally different situation. Afghanistan has degenerated into an essentially failed state. The government is now corrupt (sorry to say) and the Taliban has rallied (both being helped by the fact that narcotics fuel the economy). And, yes, all of this while Al Qaeda has apparently found safe-haven in Pakistan. What may have worked 5-6 years ago (in terms of American policy, I'm saying) may not be appropriate now...........................................................If it were me advising President Obama (a radical thought, granted), I'd tell the fellow to basically wipe the slate clean/start again. That, and learn from the mistakes of his predecessor. Namely, Obama has to ask himself, how is putting 17,000 more troops into the middle of that grinder going to make America safer? And what about defining a mission (one, and sticking with it - Hello, Richard Cheney), determining an exit-strategy, cutting a deal with the lesser unsavories, etc.?..................................................................I'm telling you, folks, if it was me down there planning strategy, the goal would be precise. Kill as many of the people who tried to kill us on 9/11....and leave. LEAVE!!......................................................................P.S. The fact that Bush allowed Al Qaeda to escape into the mountainous region of Pakistan - that, in my opinion, may be the weakest part of his legacy. This, I'm saying, in that damned if it doesn't leave us in a quandary. If we don't send in the extra troops, we're never going to be assured of getting the bastards. If, however, we do (and/or continue to fire drones into northern Pakistan), we just might be risking an overthrow of that shaky (albeit, yes, nominally pro-western) government. Not exactly a lot of good options, in other words.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Palestinian mouth-piece, Saeb Erekat - now, THAT, folks, is a lying sack of doo-doo. I mean, this guy has spouted more misinformation than even the extremists in this country have. And the media, OUR MEDIA, have repeatedly give him this opportunity, over and over and over again............................................................Perhaps the worst example of this guy's bombastic rants came in April 2002. He, along with others of the Palestinian Authority's slime-machine (without even knowing the full story, mind you), went on CNN and proclaimed that a massacre had taken place in the town of Jenin. Erekat specifically stated that at least 500 people were murdered and that at least 1,600 others were missing - all at the hands of Israeli troops. It was a total fabrication................................................................Now, granted, the Palestinians had to back off of this scurrilous claim after the full evidence came in (56 killed, only 22 of which were civilians). But the fact that they were able to make the accusation at all speaks volumes. And the fact that the only reason Israel went into Jenin in the first place was to root out terrorist groups (Jenin had in fact become a cesspool for such miscreants) - damned if that, too, didn't get lost in the shuffle...........................................................Look, folks, I'm not saying that Israel is completely blameless here. They've got some bastards that they need to root out, too. But this propaganda that Erekat and his buddies have been shamelessly shoveling is absolutely revolting. I mean, just take a look at what happened here. A large chunk of the property damage in the Jenin refugee camp was caused by the Palestinians' own bombs. This and then, obviously, they blame Israel. It's like, talk about some sleeze-ball crap, huh? Saeb Erekat, folks, one of the worst of the worst.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

A rift between George Bush and Dick Cheney? You gotta be kidding, right? Well, guess what, folks, apparently it's happening. According to what I saw on CNN today, Cheney is extremely pissed at Bush for his refusal to pardon Scooter Libby (I guess that Bush's commutation of Scooter is/was insufficient in Cheney's eyes). He thinks that Libby (his good friend, it must be noted) is an honorable man whose only real crime was loyalty. He also thinks that Mr. Libby is being made into a scapegoat. Why the hell Mr. Bush doesn't just flat-out pardon this fellow - not only is this something that perplexes the former vice president, like I said before, it angers him, too............................................................As to what Bush's reasons were for not pardoning Scooter, one can only speculate, I assume. My sense of the matter is that Bush is a big legacy fellow and it was this that he had in mind. He saw what happened to Clinton when that president abused the power of the pardon (Marc Rich, Puerto Rican drug-dealers, etc.). Couple that with the lousy economy and the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan remain quite problematic and, yeah, he probably didn't want to push the envelope in this regard. He finally became practical, in other words. Oh well, better late that never.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

To all the people who want to charge George Bush as a war-criminal, I simply say, be my guest, knock yourself out at it, etc.. Hell, what the hell do I care? I don't exactly have fond memories of the last eight years, either. In fact, it might actually be a welcome sight to see him have to do a little "explaining" - and, yes, do it in a format where HIS flunkies can't control the tempo, etc............................................................The only thing I ask is that you maybe take a little bit of a breather before you decide to go head first into it. This, I'm saying, in that you really and absolutely might be opening up a Pandora's Box here. First of all, not only do you have the Bush administration to deal with. You also have Tony Blair and British intelligence folks. They were as strong an advocate for going to war as the Bushies were (and continued to be even after all these charges of deception started to erupt). Are we going to put Tony Blair on trial, too?...............................................................And, yes, folks, what about leaders from history? Are we going to start to put them under the microscope, too? For instance, what about Roosevelt (the needless and gratuitous fire-bombing of Tokyo) and Churchill (the needless and gratuitous fire-bombing of Dresden)? Are we going to posthumously put THEM on trial? And what about Truman? There are a lot of people out there (most on the left, by the way) who think that, by incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he was a war-criminal, too. Is it also time for him to face the music? I'm just asking.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Clif, this is yet another example of how you moronically and one-sidedly examine issues. Yes, there has been voter fraud at various stages in our history. And, yes, in many instances the Republicans have been the perpetrators here. But to imply that the Democratic party is completely clean here (as apparently you are), I really think you need to do a double-take, bro. To quote a conservative blogger I recently came across, "Democrats want clean elections about as much as Dracula wants a sack of Garlic.".................................................................And, yes, that's exactly why we NEED photo I.D.s at the voting booth. Just in Ohio alone, they have four counties in which the Dems have registered more voters than they have people 18 and over in the population. Registering felons, illegal aliens, and even dead people - these are all tactics that have been employed by various/unscrupulous party heads. Clif, we need a photo I.D. to cash a check. Even to buy a six-pack of beer, for Christ (I got "carded" well into my 30s)! Don't you think that maybe we need to know who the hell is who - at the very least on election day?................................................................P.S. And, Clif, what do you think about Obama wanting to move the census operation from the Commerce department to the White House? I mean, I know that Obama is way cool and everything but, still, I always thought that the census was supposed to be kept separate from political operatatives. Is this yet another example of change we can believe in.

I hate to say it, folks, but in my opinion, the only way that we're going to achieve success (or victory, if you prefer the Bush/McCain term) in Afghanistan is if we do the same thing we did in Iraq. And, no, I'm not referring to any sort of surge strategy (either the one that Bush implemented in Iraq or the one that Obama is promising for Afghanistan), either. I'm talking about the fact that we're probably going to have to go to bed with (as in make a deal with) a number of rather unsavory individulals; so-called moderate elements of the Taliban (maybe throw in a couple of warlords and drug-dealers, to boot).......................................I mean, think about it here. That's what got us to tamp down the violence in Iraq - not the frigging troop surge , for Christ! Add to that the fact that the Soviet Union and the Brits, at the height of their own world power (damn it!) couldn't subdue that perpetually backward and mountainous country. What makes John McCain and Barack Obama think that we (a war weary country at best, these days) are going to do appreciably better (17,000 extra troops - yeah, right, that ought to do it, NOT!)?..........................................And even if we do tamp down the violence (via the deal-making, additional checkpoints, etc.), does anybody really think that the result will be sustainable? Me, I tend to think that once in fact we leave these places (i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan), they're just going to get frigging hellish again........................................Look, I'm not saying that these countries are NEVER going to change. But, if they do, it's going to have to come from the inside. Just like the critics of George Bush have said all along, "You cannot build Democracy at the point of a gun."

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Only in the idiotic blogosphere of Cliffy and the Mikester, folks, is the capacity to see BOTH sides of an issue and/or to compromise on an issue seen as a frailty. I mean, this is an almost cartoon-like scenario that they've created over there; clear-cut dichotomies between good and evil, absolutely, positively no shades of gray, whatsoever. In fact, me-buckos, I'm almost thinking that we're back in the 70s here - All-Time Wrestling on a Saturday afternoon; Butcher Paul Vachon, etc.......................................................Oh, and just try and disagree with them, take to criticizing one of the people that they've deemed to be the good guys, etc.. This, I'm saying, in that, if in fact you do do that, you immediately....not only get attacked and marginalized (sexually inappropriate denigration, an especially popular tactic of Cliffy, for example) but pigeon-holed as well. Man, oh man, oh man, oh man, do these frigging guys love labels; right-winger, reich-winger, troll, concern troll (that one's me, by the way), repug, wingtard. I really should have kept a list, I'm thinking............................................................And, yes, folks, this is from a posse of bloggers who generally see themselves as "progressive". Kind of ironic, huh, the extreme paucity of open-mindedness, etc.?

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

I want it to made perfectly clear, folks. I didn't even like it a little bit, that recent comment that Limbaugh made about Ted Kennedy; "They're going to have to call the health care bill the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill." I personally thought it was tasteless and, yes, I also think that maybe this is the one instance where Limbaugh SHOULD apologize.......................................................Of course, having said this, though, anybody who thinks that comments such as these are strictly the tactics of the right, it might not be a bad idea for them to re-examine that, too. Take, for instance, this blogger fellow named Clif. The dude practically did a somersault in celebration when conservative commentator Paul Wyrek passed away. Yeah, that's right, folks. He was actually happy when the fellow died. To this frigging day it still kind of creeps me out in fact..............................................................And let us not forget the Mikester, folks. John McCain, right. The poor guy almost gets blown to smithereens over the skies of Vietnam. Almost dead, he proceeds to get captured and tortured for the better part of six years. A courageous and tragic story (the poor bastard still can't lift his arms over his head) - this, according to most folks. Not to the Mikester, though. The only thing that he derives from the story-line is the fact that John McCain flat-out "lost" another plane. A frigging plane he worries about! Really frigging nice, huh?...........................................................Bottom-line, folks. There is more than enough nastiness to go around. And, yes, so, too, me-buckos, those to the left of that 50 yard stripe - rest assured that they be contributing.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Paul Tsongas, folks, now there was a politician with some real cahones. I especially loved it when he went teeth-first into the gut of his own rather stagnant (at the time) Democratic party; challenging their notions on a lot of things. I mean, seriously, a pro-business Democrat back in the '90s - how frigging cool was that? A breath of fresh air personified.......................................................Of course, what was even more impressive was when, instead of cow-towing to the American public (a la 99.9% of politicians from both parties), he decided to give US a little straight medicine, too. I especially remember this episode in Florida (right before the Florida primary, no less), folks. He's giving this speech with a lot of seniors present and, boom, he starts to talk about means-testing social security. I couldn't frigging believe it..........................................................And, yes, folks, I ask you to compare this to the far more traditional politicking/pandering of his main opponent of that era, Bill Clinton. That frigging guy (who, yes, I'll admit it, ended as a not so bad commander, after all)....not only promised a chicken in every pot but a brand spanking new china pattern to serve it on. It was pathetic. The pander-bear, Tsongas used to call him. I used to call him something else.......................................................Bottom-line, folks. Tell the people what they want to hear and, yeah, you'll probably win. It's sad to say. But it's also true.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

There are a lot of reasons why a person shouldn't take illegal drugs. And, while, yes, a lot of these reasons can sometimes border on sanctimony, there are many, MANY, others that don't..........................................................Just take, for instance, this statistic. According to recent reports coming out of Mexico, more than 8,000 drug-related homicides have occurred over the past two years in that country. And, yes, folks, being that we're the number one consumer of Mexican drugs, it wouldn't be too far of a statement to say that we ourselves have more than a little of this blood on our hands. Something to think about, no?.............................................................P.S. A lot of people will look at this statistic and use it as an argument for legalization. I don't have a problem with that (or at least I don't have a problem with us engaging in discussions here). I mean, seriously, anything would be better than what's happening now.

Friday, March 6, 2009

As an animal lover and vegetarian, I have to admit that Sarah Palin's rather cavalier treatment of these creatures is troublesome to me. I especially get a bad feeling when I see her shooting down at defenseless wolves from her damn helicopter. "Yeah, real sporting of you there, lady", is what usually enters my mind............................................................But, I'm also telling you, folks, I'm sensing more than a little sanctimony/phony outrage from the left on this one. I especially noticed it when stooges like Keith Olbermann made such a big deal over Governor Palin's interview at the slaughter-house (I guess some chicken was getting its head chopped off in the background). I mean, I really couldn't help but wonder, don't these idiots know that the chickens on this particular farm have it a lot better off than the ones from those industrial farms where they probably get their chicken (I'm assuming Olbermann ISN'T a vegetarian)? And the fact that most of them probably could care less about animals. To them, it's just another frigging way to piss on Palin. And, no, not exactly a subtle one, either..........................................................P.S. Now if I could only get Olbermann and Palin to try some of those Morning Star Farms products. That, me-buckos, would truly be the capper.

Didn't Obama say he wanted to do earmark reform? I mean, I know he's got a lot on his plate and all - cleaning up after the Bush administration, etc.. But think about it, folks. Can you even begin to imagine how popular Obama would get if in fact he took on congress here? He'd frigging shoot up to 90%, I'm thinking............................................................And it's not like he'd only be taking on Pelosi here. I've heard that up to 40% of the pork in this upcoming budget is going to be going to REPUBLICAN districts. Obama'd be taking on both parties, the entire Washington establishment, for Christ!! Talk about having the opportunity to be a hero, huh? I'm thinking that even John McCain would salute Obama here. I sure as hell know that I would.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Did I hear Obama correctly the other day? Did he actually say that the stock market was "gyrating"? I thought so..........................................................I mean, look, folks, I like this fellow, President Obama. He's a good and decent man whose intentions/convictions I'm convinced are good. But for him to say something like THAT is far, far, beneath him. The stock market isn't gyrating. It's PLUMMETING and he knows it...........................................................Of course, he also knows that that fact doesn't reflect well his policies. Hence, obviously, the spin and, yes, the highly typical cover-your-own-butt double-speak. Oh well, I guess the more that these things "change" in Washington, the faster, too, that they come home to roost. Gyrating, my booty!.......................................................Oh, yeah, it's also a good opportunity to buy. Obama said that, too.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Say what you want about Ted Kennedy, folks; the fact that he's supposedly this "liberal lion", etc.. I only ask that you recognize an additional point here. Ted Kennedy, for all of this reputation of his as a partisan animal, has nearly always been able to find a Republican co-sponsor for the legislation he puts forth. And even more impressively than this, he generally allows the co-sponsor's name to go first on the legislation.........................................................I mean, I don't know about you, folks, but I find this rather extraordinary. This, I'm saying, in that while everybody else seems to only talk bipartisanship, Senator Kennedy has actually walked the walk and done so for years. And the fact that he's ever so willing to give the other guy (who almost always happens to be a Republican, no less) top billing, the better part of the ink, etc.. Kudos to Kennedy, I say..........................................................P.S. This is not to say that the "Liberal Lion" is perfect, of course. This, I'm saying, in that maybe he does trust the government a little too much, search for solutions where he necessarily shouldn't, etc... This and there's obviously his personal life. That hasn't always been stellar. All I'm saying is that he's got a lot of goodness in him, too. And that maybe even his adversaries need to acknowledge that. Here's to hoping that at least a couple of them will.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Why do Republicans always feel that they have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh? I mean, seriously, is the king of AM radio THAT powerful? Apparently, huh?.......................................................And the fact that most of these grovelings aren't really necessary - not in my opinion, anyway. It's like, what did Michael Steele say that was so over-the-top? Rush Limbaugh IS an entertainer (an extremely talented one, at that). And, yes, he frequently IS incendiary and ugly with his format. It's not like he said that Limbaugh was an idiot or anything. But, still, there goes Steele, in less than a frigging hour, begging Rush for forgiveness................................................................Hey, maybe that Washington Post reporter (I forgot the guy's name) today was right. Maybe the Republican party needs a Sister Souljah moment - a person in the party, yes, to take on Mr. Limbaugh but this one to hold his/her ground. I personally think that that person would be lionized - and not just by a left-leaning media, either. I'm not going to hold my breath obviously.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Human beings aren't constructs, Bartlebee. They aren't nifty little categories, either. I mean, I know that you need them to function and all but, NO, that alone is insufficient - insufficient as hell, me-bucko!..............................................................And, yes, Bartlebee, I also want you to reflect upon this dumbfounding piece of reasoning of yours. You are asking people to believe that I spent 12 months of my life/precious existence masquerading - making believe that I was a slightly left of center blogger - just so I could someday fool a bevy of lunatics that (for the entirely of those 12 months, mind you) I never knew existed. I mean, seriously, bro, I've worked in the human services field for 30 years and I've known psychiatric patients who couldn't conjure up anything that nonsensical..........................................................Oh, and then there's that whole Kafkaesque/Catch 22 mouse-trap of yours - that damned if I do, damned if I don't scenario that you, yourself, have so maniacally and shamelessly concocted. I mean, think about it. If I criticize the Democrats, that means I'm a conservative. If, however, I praise the Democrats/criticize the Republicans (which I still do regularly, by the way), that also means I'm a conservative - this, in that I'm being disingenuous............................................................And let us not forget the Mikester, either. This, I'm saying, in that, so, too, is this guy the real deal (i.e., certifiable). Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that if selective perception itself ever changed from a concept to a hominid, Mike and his trousers would be a damn perfect fit. This clown has the audacity to say that I'm a partisan, that I see everything through a partisan lens. GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK!!! I've written hundreds of posts and comments that have been highly critical not just of conservative politicians, mind you, but of conservative media people as well (and, no, Bart/Mike, Katie Couric isn't in any way, shape, or form one of them - idiots!). Compare this to the Mikester. This flaming lunatic only criticizes Democrats....WHEN THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC ENOUGH!! And he still maintains that Jimmy Carter was a good president. Yeah, Bart, that Jimmy Carter. The same Jimmy Carter who even Eugene McCarthy couldn't bring himself to vote for in '80 (he voted for Reagan instead)..............................................................Of course, what really makes my blood boil is when you lunatics accuse me of disingenuousness. Nobody does that, me-bucko. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And right now I'm saying that I don't like either party..................................................It's like, what, now that it's Barack Obama's who's spending us into debt (and not W), I'm suddenly supposed to like it? Now that it's Barack Obama who's overseeing a rendition policy, I'm supposed to like that, too? Oh, and don't even get me going on foreign entanglements, Obama's Afghan policy, etc.. This, I'm saying, in that a geopolitical nightmare is a geopolitical nightmare. Bush, Obama, it don't know the difference, bro. And neither does a body-bag, either.